|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,475
Posts545,171
Members14,409
| |
Most Online1,335
Apr 27th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,158 Likes: 114
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,158 Likes: 114 |
The tent is already too small with both sides included in our ever shrinking world of outdoorsmen. We may not have the luxury of splintering the ranks, but it doesn't help for the left side to snipe like Winchester on MASH with unjustified condescension, while offended conservative side fires off salvos of righteous indignation. Takes a little diplomacy to get the best out of both and not the worst?... MASH-- Mobile Army Surgical Hospital-- How does Winchester sniper rifles play into this farce TV show? Were there sniper rifles used by the Army and Marine Corps in that "Police action?""You betcha-- mainly M-1D and some Springfield 1903-A3's that were scoped-- but darn few to be found in a MASH scenario- more likely stethescopes, bedpans and plasma!!
"The field is the touchstone of the man"..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438 |
The world has moved on, as Roland the Gunslinger said. The putative (accepted or supposed) end of a well-trained militia was, according the founding muthas, the necessary condition for a potentially successful resistance to tyranny (just no faith there in pitchforks and mauls against Brown Bess). What level of training with what "arms" would we need today to promise even the hope of parity with modern armies? Surface to air missles, tactical nukes maybe? So we all know the embattled farmers bit is getting a bit old on the shelf. There is of course the guerilla idea and we've fought enuf of them to know that there's a long term stinger in resistance with minimal armament which exhausts high-tech armies. But we don't want to live like rats so not even the best infantry squad weapon would count for much in the sort of freeze-dried, melodramatic resistance to tyranny which we glory in. Bunch of rhetoricians! I can't believe you're really only playing dumb, Keith.
jack Rabbit: In all honesty I think you need to get your meds checked. I'm in the same boat as Keith in that I ve read your responses multiple times and I still have no idea what you are talking about. Jim
The 2nd Amendment IS an unalienable right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 742
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 742 |
Winchester, the character, sniped verbally and condescendingly in a most northeastern manner--irritating and insulting. That should be avoided if we are to unify around second amendment rights. I am trying to be a peacemaker if possible, tho I sometimes come off as an intolerant cro-magnon to my friends. It ain't easy bein me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 742
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 742 |
BTW, speaking of facts, who did McCarthy ever specifically falsely accuse?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812 |
Beggers belief that you're unable to parse the mumblings of an obvious madman, Jim, considering you're usually so good at squeezing meaning from the tiniest thing. I'd almost think you're willfully obtuse. But then you're all about rhetorical tactics so maybe you're falling back once more on ad hominem characterization. At which training fort did you study offensive debate.
jack
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812 |
I got to tell you folks that I used to think there was a qualifying phrase ("A well-regulated militia, being necessary to . . .") followed by a clause thereby qualified ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.") I've been admonished that the right to keep and bear is absolute and not qualified by perceived necessity. It now occurs to me after our little conversation that in the view of some here there are no other amendments accompaning the 2nd possessing any importance whatsoever. Maybe there's no Constitution preceding the Bill of Rights either? Sorry damn situation imo and I'm out the door on this one. Enjoy yourselves as only you can, Jim, Dave, Keith, and whassisname.
jack
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,343 Likes: 390
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,343 Likes: 390 |
jack, after reading and re-reading your last several ramblings numerous times, I think I've finally deciphered what you were trying to say. I'm now at least 51% certain that you feel (or felt) that the Second Amendment applies only to bodies such as the National Guard (which hadn't been conceived when the Bill of Rights was written), or police, or the military (even though there was no formal standing army at the time). It seems as though the Heller decision must have been a huge disappointment to you. Sorry about that.(No, I'm really not... I'm just pretending to be nice to another Obama apologist)
It further appears that you also have some twisted opinion that Jim, Dave, whassisname, and myself have no interest or belief in any other Constitutional amendments save the Second, or the Constitution itself. And somehow, somewhere in this thread, we managed to convey that view to you?
Jim, Dave, whassisname... I demand that you guys stop sending those telepathic messages to jack. I intend to stop as well. That wasn't very nice of us.
If there are any more evil voices inside your head jack, you just let us know and we'll make them go away. I'm a Catholic and I know a priest who performs excorcisms. It's going to be OK.
And under Obamacare, you won't be denied coverage because of a pre-existing mental disorder! Hope and Change.
A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,199 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,199 Likes: 7 |
[img]http://www.google.com/imgres?q=tinfoil+helmet&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=822&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=Cbk9L7s-wa5PBM:&imgrefurl=http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/&docid=ib5jq1dyOnmGHM&imgurl=http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/ali2.jpg&w=410&h=307&ei=StyfT5aYIuiG0QHw_4y7Ag&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=376&vpy=151&dur=4508&hovh=194&hovw=260&tx=38&ty=212&sig=112747250087689827424&page=1&tbnh=141&tbnw=183&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:73[/img] http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/
fiery, dependable, occasionally transcendent
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438 |
Text of Amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Rabbit:
I'll make this as simple as possible for you"
The 1st part of the 2nd Amendment(up to the comma) is a dependent clause . If taken by itself it's meaningless because it can't stand alone. The 2nd part is the primary point.
In other words the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
Oh and BTW if you still disagree: Please tell us which other Amendments in the Bill of Rights aren't individual rights?
Jim
The 2nd Amendment IS an unalienable right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812 |
Actually, everything before the comma is a "phrase", Jim, and some sort of ablative expression from the Latin altho understood as a clause as in the paraphrase "It has come to our notice that a well-regulated militia is a good safeguard of our freedoms, and thus we find that the R to K&B shall not be infringed." After the comma comes a bunch of words that indeed is a clause as it has both subject and predicate and it is also the dependent or qualified clause. Whether or no the right to K&B is an individual right and unimpeachable in cases where its maintenance may not favor the state or the PTB is certainly up for grabs given that "a well-reguated militia is a collectivity. You'll wind up on the loosing end of this argument and I wouldn't be surprised if the occasion was another terrorist score and the presiding administration nominally "conservative" and possibly Republican. Who ya gonna call {names}, then, buddy?
jack
|
|
|
|
|
